The FIA will not be appointing an F1 Commissioner, Jean Todt said today.

At the time of his election as FIA president in Autumn 2009, the Frenchman promised the introduction of a commissioner to represent the FIA at Grands Prix and oversee F1 on a day to day basis.

This led to speculation as to who the ideal candidate to fill this powerful new role might be, with various names bandied about, including Gerhard Berger.

But 15 months into his tenure as president Todt has decided that an F1 commissioner is not needed,

“I had a superficial understanding about the FIA and how it worked, “ he admitted, speaking in his office overlooking Place de La Concorde in Paris.“So definitely with this superficial understanding we made some proposals. Most of them as long as they are constructive will be maintained. I thought it would be a good idea to have a commissioner for each FIA championships. But we have done a review of all the commissions and if you have a strong president of every commission then why do you need an F1 commissioner?”

With no commissioner in prospect, Todt’s position is still central to all the big decisions and negotiations regarding the sport.

“I don’t need to interact with everything,” he said. “I need to be involved but I never make any autocratic decisions – I cannot. We have an F1 commission.”

Todt cites the example of the sole tyre supplier contract which recently went to Pirelli despite Todt’s preference for Michelin.

But Todt says he will robustly fight the FIA’s corner in the upcoming negotiations over a new Concorde Agreement, due to come into force in 2013. “It is my job to secure the present and future of the FIA F1 world championship,” he said.

The 1.5l turbos aren't up for debate - the contracts/rules/etc involved are done and work has started on them. Changing that would involve rewriting the engine rules from scratch again, with all the horse-trading that would involve.

Being a huge F1 fan and considering myself a fairly knowledgeable F1 fan for over 20 yrs I'm embarassed to ask this question. What exactly do the FIA do? Where does the FIA's control start and stop and where does Bernie E fit in?

James, would you mind writing a small article to explain those differences? I have a hard time grasping how the FIA operates. There seems to be no limit as to what they can involve themselves in - road safety, F1 engines, climate change, drivers, teams, finances etc.

I find it increasingly difficult each year to try to explain to friends who are new F1 fans who the FIA are and how F1 operates since it seems to get exponentially more complicated year on year.

FIA-FOM-CVC-FOTA all constitute a big dysfunctional family that promotes lots of inbreeding and lots of conflict of interest with Fans interest least on their list of priorities.

In an Ideal world FIA should be independent Governing body not just for F1, but for all the motor racing events assisting Racing series organizers (like FOM/CVC/Bernie) to set up regulations for their series and provide Governance and guidance in case of dispute between racing series-participating teams-local race promoters-drivers-Fans.

But during the tenure of previous president impression was created that FIA is all about F1 and managing F1. Under tenure of Jean Todt, FIA is moving away from too much hand holding of F1 and slowly we are getting impression that FIA is not just limited to F1 but all the motor racing series.

However this flip flop on the decision to appoint a commissioner for F1 is going 10 steps backwards after making some significant progress in the new regime under Jean Todt.

One way of looking at the FIA is to say it brings something to the race. They don’t need it as such as someone else could bring it. The ACO brings that something to Le Mans without any real interference from the FIA despite the fact that, in theory, they run the race under their auspices.

The FIA cannot ‘take on’ the ACO, not yet at least. So the F1 teams could run the Grand prix race under their own management. Or even the ACO’s if they wanted to really rub it in.

The FIA’s income comes from licensing: drivers and now everyone else it would appear. It did get $ or Euro or £300m from Bernie’s mob but that comes to an end this year I think.

In the same way as there are many world championship boxing crowns, there could be other forms of GP but not F1. That belongs to Bernie. He thinks it is the key but that might be disputed. A rose by any other name sort of thing. If Ferrari takes flight then you can call what HRT runs in F1 but it will fool few.

Todt is in a very difficult position. In theory he is the lord of all he surveys but in reality it could all disappear tomorrow, or rather 2013, and there would be nothing he could do about it. He needs the Concord Agreement to recognise his authority so wants to get the teams, or FOCA, on ‘his’ side.

But they are asking for oodles of money so he can’t really agree to that as it would upset Bernie’s lot, the commercial rights holder – what else is there to bring the money in? All the teams would not leave of course but one would assume that McLaren and Ferrari might but who else? Not Williams. Red Bull? They are in it for their returns. They will go where the publicity goes or jump ship if there’s none and they can get a buyer.

And so it goes on with Merc, Renault and such.

The attempt to get other teams into F1 has not been an unqualified success and some saw this as an attempt to break the power of FOCA.

Someone posted earlier that the 4-cylinder lowish boost engines are a done deal but they are not. It all depends on what the teams, Bernie and Todt come to decide. At best it might be something everyone currently agrees with in principal. At worst it could be a pious hope.

So the FIA is the fat kid who brings the ball to the football match and then demands to play. If someone else brings another ball then, and is a better player, they can all play with that as long as the owner of the pitch, who gets paid for the hire, goes along with it. There are other pitches but no one really knows how good they are.

But whatever happens, if they play with the new ball the fat kid has to play in the position that the other players tell him. He could even end up being the waterboy.

Change is risky and costs. The teams will want the easy route and this is probably the status quo as far as the FIA is concerned. But not the relationship with Bernie. The teams want more money and will probably see it as a given.

But it ain’t.

This is probably the most dangerous time for F1 there’s been. I’m not sure the FIA is strong enough.

You remember the fat kid with the ball? Everyone was his mate right up until someone brought a better ball.

FIA: Is the ruling power. They make the rules, work for safety, gives out superlicences (and can take them away, as in the case of Ide), licences tracks, etc.

FOTA: Team's association. They pretty much took what power they wanted, and they make rule suggestions to the FIA, but they don't write the rules.

FOM: Formula One Management. Bernie works for a venture capitalist firm called CVC, who bought the commercial rights to F1 from Bernie, who again bought it from FIA (Max) for almost nothing. Bernie deals with TV, advertising, circuit contracts and Concorde.

Teams get 50% of revenues, paid freights and probably some other things. The rest goes to FOM. FIA gets nothing except money for superlicences, $100 million from McLaren, fines and other small sums. Revenues are paid according to constructor's results, with something extra for historic teams (Ferrari!, McLaren?, Williams?)

Teams are now pushing for nothing less than 75% of revenues, and will probably demand 80.

Ferrari got a one-off payoff in the 00's to stay with FIA/FOM to prevent a breakaway at the time. They also got a right to veto any rule they did not like. Like a $40 million budget cap.

Then there is a drivers association where drivers can complain about lack of safety or be mad at Michael when he parks his car on the track. They talk about safety-related things and can agree on certain practical and safety rules for separate races.

Below I give my take on what’s what. I stand to be corrected having no pretense at ‘professional’ knowledge. I’m just a fan. The teams formed an association a few years ago threatening to break away from the FIA, and from Bernie and his group. They wanted a bigger share of the pie. So there is the association of the teams. I believe that Bernie runs and partly owns the group that controls the commercial rights to F1. Years ago, Bernie unsuccessfully ran a F1 team. Then he struck gold with the commercial rights contract. Bernie and his group have nothing race fans are interested in. He just has lots of money and with it he can buy others off. I believe the Concorde Agreement importantly determines how the commercialization profits are shared between the teams, and Bernie’s group. The FIA is the body that has historically governed motor racing especially in Europe. So we have an unholy trinity: the FIA, the teams, and the commercial rights owners. Then there are the fans. They are interested in racing, in tradition, and in concepts like the best, which are represented by the words World Drivers Championship, and Formula One. Tradition comes in with some race tracks like Monaco and Spa. It also comes in with a direct line to drivers like Clark and Senna. The teams are divided between racers, like the Williams team, and others like Mercedes and Red Bull who use F1 for commercial purposes (selling drinks and cars). The teams have three major weaknesses: they are not united and so they can be divided for conquest by Bernie, they have different goals, and finally they can be major players today and gone tomorrow as happened with Honda and Toyota. Bernie is said to have offered Ferrari more than the other teams receive to pry them away from their association. The FIA is unnecessary. They are an umbrella organization for much of motor sports. Here in America the NFL (National Football League), the NHL (National Hockey League), Nascar and other big hitters in sport run themselves. Finally there is the question of who has the rights to the name “Formula One.” This includes the terms F1, and World Drivers Championship. I don’t have the answer there but it is important because these words mean a lot to fans and so are marketable. Whoever owns these words is in the driver’s seat.

These groups have different interests and then there are the fans. For example Turkey might have been good for Bernie’s group because Turkey paid lots of money that made holders of the commercial rights happy. There was no one at race track last year. Obviously Turks have other things to do. Manufacturers might be less happy with Turkey asking themselves how many cars can be sold there. They’re more interested in the U.S.A. and Europe. Sport fans might be interested in Spa, but Bernie less so. Where is the money? Most teams have no commercial value. No one cares whether or not Force India or Torro Rosso will be there next year. Ferrari on the other hand is emblematic of what racing is all about. McLaren is too, but less so. If I were Todt, I would try to promote the commercialization of other racing categories like sports car racing and rallying. I believe that the key is a name (think formula one) that captures the imagination. Rallying is amazing and the 24 hours le Mans has a lot of potential. The present technology in cameras makes the visual presentation of these types of racing for television much better today. Also specialty sports channels might carry a 24-hour race from beginning to end insuring the end is during prime time. McLaren used to do sports car racing in America with Humes at the wheel. The cars were mustard yellow, McLaren’s original colours. Ferrari was also a major player in sports car racing. For sports car racing the need is to simplify with only one clear winner. The drivers running across the track to the cars was also attention getting. Finally Bernie has no interest in racing. I’m thinking of his idea of sprinkler racing.

I think this shows why an article from James would be a good idea. Russell has provided a good summary of the situation but missed out FOTA (as noted below) and I would say the OWG deserve a mention. I've seen plenty of criticisms of the FIA for ideas which came from FOTA or the OWG.

The difference between American sports like the NHL, NFL, NBA, and MLB that you mention and the motorsport that the FIA sponsors is that the FIA acts as an umbrella giving smaller forms of motorsport credibility and attention they would not normally receive. They have a very important job and should stay in one piece; however, Bernie's holding of the rights should be changed. I think the rights to Formula 1 should either go to the FIA or the F1 teams.

I agree Mack41. What Todt will or won't do, remains to be seen. I'm still hopeful.

My comment about the FIA not being necessary did not mean it isn't good to have or at least potentially good.

I'd still like hearing about who owns the rights to the words Formula One. Can the words World Driving Championship be owned and are they? What about the words Grand Prix as they pertain to car racing?

Nelson Piquet won a couple of WDCs for Bernie's team, in an era when F1 was far more competitive than it is today.

"No one cares whether or not Force India or Torro Rosso will be there next year."

Except for the fans of those teams, the people who work for those teams, the future champions who get their foot in the door by racing for one of the smaller teams.

"The drivers running across the track to the cars was also attention getting."

It was also downright dangerous, as drivers didn't always strap themselves in correctly. I believe this was the reason that it stopped.

"Finally Bernie has no interest in racing."

Which is why he raced himself when he was younger, owned an F1 team for the best part of 20 years, used to be a regular to the historic Monaco Grand Prix. If you saw the recent BBC documentary on 60 years of F1, then you would have heard Bernie being highly praised. Everybody in F1 today is better off than they would otherwise be because of his involvement.

“He disappears from the race circuits as soon as the red lights go out. That’s how much Bernie cares about F1.”

Are you sure about that? I always thought that he generally headed off to his on-site office. The man is a workaholic.

“And after aquiring the rights to F1 under dubious circumstances…”

Fair enough.

Would you agree that the teams competing in F1 have gained more from Bernie than what they have lost? Are you aware of what the sport was like for the teams pre-Bernie.

“Bernie signs up new circuits that are characterless and full of empty seats and threatens to take away F1 from the more popular traditional circuits …”

Abu Dhabi, Korea and Singapore all look to have healthy crowds. I am under the impression that both Spa and Monza had plenty of spare capacity last year though.

When did Silverstone last put on a eventful race that wasn’t artificially enhanced? As for Monaco, true fans and eventful races are not terms that are readily associated with the venue!

“angering many fans”

I think you need to appreciate that the sport does not appeal to just one specific demographic – it has worldwide appeal. Indeed, television audiences in some of the “new” countries are much higher than those in the “traditional” countries. No decision pleases everyone, however I do detect more than a trace of solipsism in some of the rants that I read.

“ F1 is characterized by back room deals that heavily favours one team”

One team receives a larger slice of the pie than others because of both its immense popularity and rich history. Other teams acknowledge that the sport would be poorer without its presence. Incidentally, teams such as McLaren and Williams seem to get more than teams such as Sauber for historical reasons – do you want this inequality stamped out?

One could suggest that Bernie has no interest in F1 other than to line his own pockets.

Why?

He disappears from the race circuits as soon as the red lights go out. That's how much Bernie cares about F1.

And after aquiring the rights to F1 under dubious circumstances he then saddles it with a huge amount of debt by selling F1 rights to CVC....again...that's how much Bernie cares about F1.

Bernie signs up new circuits that are characterless and full of empty seats and threatens to take away F1 from the more popular traditional circuits, angering many fans.....that's how much Bernie cares about F1.

AND .... F1 is characterized by back room deals that heavily favours one team and has previously enjoyed the support of FIA under Max Mosely. Is that the sort of culture we want for F1 that is supposed to be a sport?

Good replies mtb. i really mean that. Your memory of many specifics beats my fading memory. I wonder though if there is a reasonable question of forests vs trees here, specifics vs the overall picture. I'm not sure there is but I suspect so.

PS I knew my le Mans run across the road thing would draw flack. We all measure danger differently. Some think racing period is crazy-dangerous. In the US they have running starts because they think that starting from stop is too dangerous. They also do not race in the rain. Having said that, you're right. It is dangerous.

They write and control the rules which can include anything from engines to budgets, to personel. They look after the "sport".

Bernie is a salesman - he sells races and TV rights. Both products he is well in charge off. Hence his commisions.

FIA deals with powerful figures in Bernie and Teams so it has to act politicaly and on occasion put some pressure here and there to show who's in charge of the sport or to get what it wants. Max was a master of doing that. Since it is responsible for Manu motor sport activities it invests in motoring safety. Just like FIFA invest in combating racism an spreading the joy of the game.

I would be interested in this if it was at all possible.I vaguely remember a mention of a look into the business of F1 for those without a business mind if it exists can someone point me in the right direction if not could it be a mini series such as the tech and strategy reports. Thanks

Yes, but then we should not expect anything better from F1. And not just F1, look at FIFA, possibly the most corrupt sporting organisation on the planet. Wherever you find people and power combined you find corruption. It's our fault more than theirs for putting up with it.

The teams should have broken away when they had the chance, I'd bet Honda, Renault, BMW & Toyota would still be in it if they had and we may well have seen the likes of Audi/WV join the club.

It is just nuts the interference the teams suffer from the FIA and they money taken from the sport by Ecclestone, madness and not it looks like we'll be getting 4 cylinder engines now which F1 fans want that?

No... the fans don't but the people who hate motor racing would prefer the greener engines, aswell as all the manafacturers that we don't have.

So in short, if people who hate motor racing start watching F1 and manafacturers that weren't part wouldn't be part of it unless they have 4 cylinder engines then there is success.

Personally I think there should be more manafacturers in F1, the budgets turned people off. BMW didn't go away because thye didn't like V8's... thye put them in their M3. They went away because they didn't have the moeny. Toyota pulled out because of the money. Renault the controversy and money etc...

Sure we may get a VW or something in because of 4 cylinder engines, but I think that a a 100 million euro cap would bebetter than 4cylinder engines definately.

Just as the front wing needs to be crash tested it can be checked for aero.

THe less aero from wings, the more the aero will have to come from else where and hence he will see more mclaren antler sidepods or slimer body work etc... different ideas to make the downforce on the body andslim the body down rather than just relying on wings for downforce.

If you limit the wings downforce then you limit the amount of air that is disturbed greatly.

The cars of the Sixties and Seventies lacked various safety measures that we now take for granted.

Instead of carbon fibre, cars of that period were built around either a tubular framework or an aluminium monocoque. In both cases, these structures had little strength compared to what is used now, therefore cars tended to fold up in a crash, causing terrible injuries and often death.

The fire question is probably answered as follows: -

Fuel tanks were made from aluminium. These could shatter in a crash allowing fuel to spill on to hot exhausts whereas modern tanks are made from a rubber-like compound, sorry I don't know precisely what it is, which can deform in an accident and not shatter like an aluminium tank can. Furthermore, many cars carried their tanks in unprotected areas of the car such as where sidepods currently sit eg the March 701. Today's cars have to have their tanks behind the driver and I believe there are regulations determining the width of the tank, so it is not vulnerable to a side-impact.

Couplings for fuel systems are designed to snap shut in the event of a breakage, preventing fuel spillage. These fittings were introduced in the seventies, I think, too late for Jochen Rindt, Piers Courage and many others.

It is sometimes said that many drivers died through suffocating rather than burns. That is why drivers have a supply of air piped to their helmets. Additionally, on-board fire extinguishers are now fitted to cars.

I should also mention that marshalls are now trained to deal with fire, and properly equipped to do so. If you saw the Roger Williamson fire at Zandvoort you may have noticed a man in what looks like a plastic mac!

Thanks for posting about this. I had no idea this had been on. Fascinating documentary. A terrible yet exhilarating time. I didn't get into F1 until the 80s so for me it's important to remember where the sport has come from.

I was also born well after that time. The only fatal crash I remember watching live was Senna, but F1 was very different already back then. The documentary took me to the time I knew very little about. Yes it was terrible time because of number of deaths, but at the same time with near total lack of H&S there was that sense of freedom and spirit of racing much more tangible than it is today.

If I could choose between safety of todays racing or that early days madness in cotton overalls I would go for the later.

They are so geared towards profiteering, they would even introduce a world hated device, such as DRS... to introduce gimmicky overtaking to fool viewing audiences.

The FIA under Max Mosely was the worst period for F1 to date. I lost all respect for the FIA, and was 100% in support of a breakaway series. Its a crying shame it didn't happen - as we are still stuck with the old regime, and its highly dubious ways.

The FIA take far more from F1, then they contribute... they couldn't even get rid off Max Mosely after he disgraced F1 in a brothel.

McLaren, Red Bull, Ferrari, Hamilton, Alonso and Kobayashi is all that is needed to create a new racing platform... lets hope someone sees sense, and we get to see authentic racing again where aero and grip are returned to 80/90s levels... and excess BHP engines, so we can see the cars really accererate away like we used to...

The problem with power and lower grip is that equals higher chances of crashes.

Which is bad if it goes the wrong way. With the big run offs you should be able to get big engines whihc combined with lower aero means that a better exit to a corner would be much better than currently where the engine has less impact.

Only problems are that we are getting smaller weaker engines not bigger ones, and what JA said.

Actually, the correct ratio of downforce and mechanical grip will produce cars that have to go more slowly through corners. The excess BHP then has to be managed by the driver to ensure optimal acceleration.

These are the key elements to exciting racing.

Obviously the bigger teams don't want to reduce aero, as that is keeping them ahead of the rest - this equals a very boring race on most tracks for us.

Modern F1 cars are more like flightless aircraft, then proper racing cars.

One small correction to your second para: the teams via FOTA were centrally involved in introducing the DRS wing. It's not imposed on them by the FIA. Read the debate on this from last week, with the FIA, view, the FOTA view and the fans' view on the DRS

F1 is a complicated sport and needs a strong hand (or strong hands) to guide the way forward.

I don’t think that Todt underestimated the scope of his position, perhaps just the details of how the FIA is structured and organized. As he says, as long as proposals are constructive they will be given due consideration.

Once the safety and green mandates are met what is left for the sport? Could be that ‘entertainment’ is the last card to play.